Abstract
The general conditions of epistemic defeat are naturally represented through the interplay of two distinct kinds of entailment, deductive and defeasible. Many of the current approaches to modeling defeasible reasoning seek to define defeasible entailment via model-theoretic notions like truth and satisfiability, which, I argue, fails to capture this fundamental distinction between truthpreserving and justification-preserving entailments. I present an alternative account of defeasible entailment and show how logic programming offers a paradigm in which the distinction can be captured, allowing for the modeling of a larger range of types of defeat. This is possible through a natural extension of the declarative and procedural semantics of Horn clauses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Carciofini, J., Hadden, G., Colburn, T., and Larson, A. (1987), LogLisp Programming System Users Manual, RADC Technical Report 87-228, Griffiss Air Force Base, NY: Rome Air Development Center.
Chisholm, R. M. (1977), Theory of Knowledge, Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Costantini, S. and Lanzarone, G. (1990), ‘Metalevel Negation in Non-Monotonic Reasoning’, Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Logic, Austin, TX, pp. 19–26.
Hawthorne, J. (1988), ‘A Semantic Approach to Non-Monotonic Entailments’, in LemmerJ.F. and KanalL.N. (eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 2, New York, NY: North Holland, pp. 251–262.
Kowalski, R. A. (1974), ‘Predicate Logic as Programming Language’, in Proceedings of the IFIP-74 Congress, New York, NY: North Holland, pp. 569–574.
Lifschitz, V. (1985), ‘Computing Circumscription’, in GinsbergM. (ed.), Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 167–173.
Loveland, D. W. (1984), ‘Automated Theorem Proving: A Quarter Century Review’, in BledsoeW. W. and LovelandD. W. (eds.), Automated Theorem Proving: After 25 Years, Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, pp. 1–45.
McCarthy, J. (1980), ‘Circumscription — A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 27–35.
McDermott, D. and DoyleJ. (1980), ‘Nonmonotonic Logic I’, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 41–72.
Moore, R. C. (1985), ‘Semantical Considerations on Nonmonotonic Logic,’ Artificial Intelligence 25, pp. 75–94.
Nute, D. (1988), ‘Defeasible Reasoning: A Philosophical Analysis in Prolog’, in J.Fetzer (ed.), Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 251–288.
Pollock, J. L. (1974), Knowledge and Justification, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pollock, J. L. (1987), ‘Defeasible Reasoning’, Cognitive Science 11, pp. 481–518.
Rankin, T. (1988), ‘When Is Reasoning Nonmonotonic?’, in J.Fetzer (ed.), Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 289–308.
Reiter, R. (1978), “On Closed World Data Bases’, in GallaireH. and MinkerJ. (eds.), Logic and Data Bases, Plenum, NY: Plenum Publishing Corp., pp. 119–140.
Reiter, R. (1980), ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 81–132.
Schrag, R. (1987), ‘Defeasible Reasoning System User's Guide’, Honeywell Systems and Research Center technical report no. CS-R87-001, Minneapolis, MN.
Shoham, Y. (1986), ‘A Semantical Approach to Nonmonotonic Logics’, in GinsbergM. (ed.), Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 227–250.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Colburn, T.R. Defeasible reasoning and logic programming. Minds and Machines 1, 417–436 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352918
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352918